LIBRARY OF 



CONGRESS 




014 312 383 2 % 



53 

42 

y 1 






TO 



"THE CRISIS.'^ 



Printed by James Peacock, Market street, 
HARBISBtJRO. 






1^ 



REPLY 



TO 

^^THE CRISIS/' 



To the Democratic Citizens of Pennsylvania. 

ON the 4?th of March next, a candidate for the 
highest oflBce in the commonwealth is to be nominated 
for your support at the next election. The state has 
flourished beyond all former example during the mild, 
impartial, and able administration of the present Go- 
vernor; and the period of his retiring from office ap- 
proaching, another bold effort will be made by the 
federal party, combined with the oldschool section, to 
wrest from your hands the administration of the go- 
vernment. It is therefore all- important that a candi- 
date be selected who shall be superior to all excep- 
tion — lirm, enlightened, and judicious. 

Two candidates have been spoken of, Mr. Find- 
lay and Mr. Boileau, each having claims on the 
support of their democratic brethren. The merits and 
claims of both gentlemen have been much spoken of 
for some months past; their characters must be known 
to all of you; aiid doubtless the one that may be se- 
lected by the convention in March, will receive your 
united and strenuous support. 



4i 

The friends of Mr. Findlay have not deemed it 
proper to enter into a full exposition of his character, 
conduct and services, unless he should be nominated 
the democratic candidate by the convention. If he be 
selected as the candidate of the party, they will then 
feel themselves bound to refute any and every slander 
that may be propagii^ted against him by the enemies of 
democracy. They have not thought proper to publish 
any biographical sketches of his life, or minute detail 
of his public services; much less have they stooped to 
the meanness of abusing the character of Mr. Boileau, 
of misrepresenting his conduct and actions, or misquo- 
ting and perverting papers and public records, for 
the purpose of prejudicing your minds against him. 

A pamphlet arrived here and was distributed yester- 
day, called " The Crisis,'' and signed *' One of the 
feople,^^ the objectof which appears to be, by low abuse 
and false insinuations, by suppression of facts, and by 
the wicked and (we believe) wilful perversion of official 
documents, to destroy the fair fame and unimpeacha- 
ble character of Mr. Findlay. If this impotent at- 
tempt at assassination of character had come from the 
federal or oldschool parties, it would have been suf- 
fered, at least for the present, to pass unnoticed. But 
it comes from a man calling himself a democrat, and a 
friend to the nomination of Mr. Boileau. It might 
deceive and mislead^ and ought therefore to be expo- 
sed; and the object of this address is to expose it 

The author of the Crisis begins his work by acme 
charges against'those printers of newspapers who have 
manifested their partiality for Mr. Findlay. He char- 
ges /^ a number of them with refusing to publish any 
^' thing in favor of another^^ candidate. He does not 
state whether the number be great or small, nor men- 
tion the names of any of them. If the number be very 
great, if the editors of newspapers be so very gene- 
rally in favor of Mr. Findlay, that the friends*^ of Mr. 
Boileau cannot reach the public ear through the chan- 
nel of the newspapers, is not this a strong proof that 
the public voice is in favor of Mr. Findlay, and not of 
Mr. Boileau? Printers generally consu\t their owi-. 



interest, and in doing so they must coiisult the pul»lic 
sentiment, before taking part in any measure of £;eneral 
interest. They throw themselves in front of the peo- 
ple, and have the appearance of leading, vvheu in fact 
they are driven and carried along by the popular voice. 
Ninety-nine times in a hundred the editors of newspa- 
pers in announcing candidates for office, speak the sen- 
timents of their subscribers. Then, even if the charge 
of '^ One of the FeopleV were true, if the number of 
printers in favor of Mr. Findlay be great, it proves 
that Mr. Boileau is not the candidate of the people. 

But suppose the number of those who refused to 
publish any thing in favor of Mr. Boileau to be small, 
to be only " three or four," as the author intimates in 
his eiglith page, what room can there be for complaint? 
There are not less, we presume, than fifty democratic 
papers in the state, and if the author of the Crisis has 
forty- six or forty- seven of them open to his attacks on 
Mr. Findlay or eulogies on Mr. Boileau^ why should 
he whine or murmur? 

But the author has another tremendous charge a- 
gainst the democratic printers. It seems that the De- 
mocratic Press ^' has published one or two articles 
^' which might be construed in favor of another can- 
" didate;^^ and that the democratic printers throughout 
the state neglected '' to republish the few articles that 
'' appeared in the Democratic Press, giving some in- 
^'formation as to the talents, political character and 
" services of Mr. Boileau.^' Oh, ye abominable, licen- 
tious printers! Do ye not yet know whence ye must 
derive all your opinions? Dare ye offer as legitimate 
and orthodox, an opinion not sanctioned by the holy 
imprimatur of the Press? Ye shall be hung for high 
treason, or gibbetted by the author of th^ Crisis for 
this unparalleled presumption. But perhaps you can 
say something in your defence. Did the Press re~ 
publish any of your pieces in favor of Mr. Findlay? 
•TVo, not one. Then you may be pardoned, and pun- 
ishment arrested. But what will the author of the 
Crisis say of the Democratic Press, which has ^* ne- 
glected^^ so 7na7iy printers in the state, v/hilst tiiey 
have neglected only oneP 



We sli all now take notice of the writer's charges 
against Mr. Findlay^ and his proofs of Mr, 
Findlay's being a federalist^ oy tainted with 
federalism. 

His first proof is a piece which he copies from the 
iVmi^rican Ceiitioel of December S7th, 1816, stating 
that Mr. Findlay received federal votes for the Legis- 
lature at the general election of 1806. This piece was 
copied by the Centinel from the York Grazette, and the 
writer of it was wholly misinformed as to the fact. Mr. 
Findlay received no federal votes. The democratic 
party had at that time a majority in Franklin county, 
and owing to a division among themselves, the two 
candidates whose names were on the ticket with Mr. 
Findlayj fell a few votes behind the two highest of 
the federal candidates, and were accordingly not elect- 
ed. Mr. Findhiy being the most popular among the 
democratic candidates, received all the democratic 
votes, and was elected. He resigned his seat during 
the session {^beiiig chosen State Treasurer) and Mr. 
Bechert was elected in his place by a majority of ^00 
votes over tiie federal candidate. This correction of 
the error in the York Gazette, appeared not long af- 
terwards in the Ckamhershurg Rejjiihlican, which no 
doubt the author of the Crisis has seen; but it did not 
suit his purpose to mention it, any more than it did to 
state that the piece fronj the Centinel above alluded to, 
was copied from the York Gazette. 

The neoct proof given hij the Crisis of Mr. Find- 
Imfs federalism^ relates to the quarrel hetiveen 

Governor JfFItcan and Mr. Bryan^ the Compt- 

roller General. 

In the session of iSOl^-i?, Mr. Boileau read a bill 
in his place, entitled '^ An act to alter the mode of ap- 
poititiiKg the Comptroller and Register General'' (jour- 
nal, p. 376) on the third reading of which six federal- 
ists, and fifteen republicans, including Mr. Findlay, 
voted iu the negative — (page -163). As far as the 



details of the bill can be ascertained from the Gov- 
ernor's objections to it, the object of it appears to 
hav6 been to take the power of appointiue; this officer 
from the Crovernor, and vest it in the Legislature- 
It by no means follows that the members who voted 
against the bill, adopted the objections to it that were 
made by the Governor. They may have had different 
and valid reasons for their opinions. It is understood 
from a gentleman who was a member of the House at 
the time, that it was advocated on the ground, that the 
Governor's having the appointment of the accounting 
officers, gave him too much influence over the ilnances 
of the state. And that it was opposed on the princi- 
ple, that if the accounting officers abused their powers 
they could be reached by impeachment, or by an ad- 
dress from the Legislature to the Governor to remove 
them. It was also contended that danger was to be 
apprehended, if their appointment should be vested in 
the Legislature: that brigade inspectors, former she- 
riffs, county treasurers, and other revenue officers who 
had unsettled accounts with the commonwealth, were 
often elected to the Legislature; and if they had the 
appointment of all the officers whose duty it was to 
settle their accounts, it might create an improper bias 
on the minds of the officers, Mr. Findlay was himself 
at that time a brigade inspector, and had to settle his 
accounts with those officers annually; and what might 
not the Crisis have said against him if he had attempt- 
ed to legislate to himself the power of participating in 
the appointment of all the officers who were to settle 
Ms own accounts? 

A leading object of the bill was to keep in office Mr. 
S. Bryan, who was the intimate friend of its^ author. 
Legislation on general principles from sueh partial 
considerations, is always dangerous. The bill eon^ 
templated no reduction of salary or expenses; it in»^ 
volved no political principle nor any favorable to the 
cause of democracy. If it did involve any principle 
advantageous to democracy, why has it not since been 
introduced? Why has not the executive recommended 
a revival of the question? True indeed, an arrange 



Hi 



8 



nient has since been made, transferring tlic powers ot" 
the Comptroller General to the Treasurer, and chang. 
ingHhe name of Register General to that of Auditor 
General; but the executive authority is still predomi- 
nant in the settlement of accounts, because the Audi- 
tor General is appointed by the Governor, and the Go- 
vernor is the umpire in all cases of difference between 
the Treasurer and Auditor General. So that the Le- 
gislatures of 1809 and 1811, have adopted the princi- 
ples of those who opposed Mr. Boileau's bill in 1^05;^ 
and those principles have been practised upon and ac- 
quiesced in ever since by all branches of the goverii- 
ment. 

The bill passed both Houses and was rejected by 
the Governor, and after M'Kean^s election in iSOSr, 
Mr. Bryan was removed. At the siicceeding session 
the friends of Governor M'Kean exhibited charges 
against Mr. Bryan of improper application of publi^ 
money. Mr. Bryan wrote a book on the subject, print- 
ed and sold by Mv. Dickson, in the spring of 1806. In 
page 8 of the preface he says, that ^^ the virtuous, able 
" and public spirited exertions of a Findlay, a Holgate 
^^ and a Lacock, and the other patriotic meinbers> t& 
^^ shield me from the meditated villainy of unprincipled 
^^ men, merit not merely my individual gratitude, but 
^^ that of every honest public spirited man in the com- 
^^ munity." This shews that there was no hostility 
between Mr. Findlay and Mr. Bryan, and that Mf. 
Findlay in opposing Mr. Boileau's bill, was not acta* 
ated by any ill will towards Mr. Bryan. Nor had he 
any thing to fear from the executive: his office of bri- 
gade inspector was independent of the executive will* 

Thus vanishes this charge of the OWsis against Mr. 
Findlay, which is made out by garbling the journals of 
the House of Representatives. Instead of manifesting 
any federal taint in Mr. Findlay, the whole facts whea 
known shew that Mr. Findlay, with fourteen other 
republicans,^ opposed Mr. Boileau's bill relative to 
the Comptroller Generafl, on principles since adopted 

* Several of those have since joined the federal and oldschool 

parti(?s. 



by the democratic Legislatures of 1809 and 18H, and 
upproved of by the whole party to this day; and that 
even Mr. Bryan mentions in the foremost place, the 
services of Mr. Findlay in the cause of democracy and 
persecuted innocence. 

The next proof of the Crisis relates to the im- 
peachment of the judges of the supreme court. 

The complaint of Passmore against the judges was 
not made at the session of 1804-5, as the Crisis falsely 
states, but at the session of 180S-3 (journal, p. 393) at 
which session Mr. Findlay was not a member. The 
committee to whom the complaint was referred made a 
report, merely recommending that the power of the 
courts to punish contempts should be more accurately 
defined (page 456). The report and documents were 
again referred to a special committee (p 49S) who 
made a similar report, with ^he addition of recommend- 
ing to the Legislature to inquire into the conduct of 
the judges (p. 513). Nothing farther w*as done at this 
session. The charges against the judges do not ap^ 
pear to have been then considered as serious. 

At the session of 1803-4? Mr. Findlay was a mem- 
ber, and the affair of the judges (17th January) was 
referred to the committee of grievances, twenty- eight 
in number, of which Mr. Findlay was not one (pages 
231 and ^1 j. The committee examined twelve or fif- 
teen witnesses (page 701), had the subject under their 
consideration for two months, and at last (13th March) 
reported a resolution that articles of impeachment 
should be preferred against the judges. Seven feder- 
alists and seventeen republicans, including Mr. Find- 
lay. on the SOth March voted against the resolutioii 
(page 634.)* 

Thus it appears that the committee had the subject 
Utader their consideration for two months, and the re- 
solution was . acted upon in six or seven days after 

* It should be noted that Several members elected as republicans, 
have since joined the oldschool and federal parties? 



10 

their report. The testimony of the witnesses given be- 
fore tlie committee, was not published. It therefore must 
have been difficult if not impossible, amidst the press 
of business at the close of the session, for those who 
had not been members the preceding session, and who 
were not on the committee of grievances, to have exa- 
mined fully, so i 115 p or tan t a subject in the short space 
of six or seven days. The House of Representatives 
incases of impeachment resemble grand juries, and 
the conscience and judgment of each member should 
Jie fully convinced, before putting any officer on trial. 
In criminal cases it cannot be proper to rest on the 
opinions of others. And after all, so doubtful was the 
evidence then in possession of the committee^ against 
the judges, that ten members of that committee and se- 
veral who had been members the preceding session, 
voted against the impeachment. The impeachment 
was not tried at this session. 

At the next session, on the resolution to prosecute 
the impeachment, several members (Mr. Fiuillay in- 
cluded) who, Had voted in the negative at the former 
session, now voted in the affirmative (journal, page 
4f0-50). Whether this change arose from their having 
had time to examine the testimony and investigate 
the merits of the case, or from the opinion that the 
judges ought to be tried since crime had been charged 
against them, cannot now be ascertained. The judges 
were finally tried by the Senate, and acquitted. 

After this statement of facts, who does not feel in- 
dignant at the base insinuations and charges of the 
Crisis against Mr. Find I ay? The author in referring 
to the journals, meanly omits every circumstance tend- 
ing to explain the cotiduct of those members who at 
first voted against the impeachment of the judges; and 
in particular most shamefully omits to state that Mr. 
Findlay did vote for the impeachment at the session 
in which the ji^lges were tried. He even conveys the 
idea that !Vlr. Fiodlay was a member of the Senate, 
and voted for th^ir acquittal. But possibly this was 
a blunder in language merely, and instead of execra- 
ting the mal'gnity of the heart, we should only smile 
at the folly of the head. 



11 

Is it not most contemptible and ridiculous, lo charge 
a man with change of political principles, because on 
some abstract questions of legislation he may sometimes 
vote with federalists, or federalists with him? At the 
session of 1803-^1, a bill entitled " An act to render 
^' the administration of justice more efficient and less 
^^ expensive within this commonwealth," reached its 
third reading in the House of Representatives. On 
the passage of the bill, 03 democrats including Mr. 
Findlay, voted in the affirmative, and Mr. Boileau and 
all the federalists voted in the negative (page 543), 
And did ever any rational man call this a proof of Mr. 
Boileau's having R,\iy federal taint? 

So corrupt and prejudiced is the mind of the author 
of the Crisis, so bent is he upon injuring the reputation 
of Mr. Findlay, that even his best actions he ascribes 
to unworthy motives. The laudable and spirited con- 
duct of Mr. Findlay to vindicate the insulted dignity 
of the Legislature in the case of judge Brackenridge's 
letter (1803-'!?, jour. p. 576, fi70) is imputed by the 
Crisis to sycophantic motives! What conduct could 
pass the ordeal of the Crisis? When good, he per- 
verts and falsities so as to render doubtful; and where 
he is compelled to admit the correctness of a measure, 
he blackens it by ascribing it to motives similar to his 
own. 

The next proof of Mr. Findhiy's heivg a feder- 
alist, brought forward hy the Crisis^ relates to 
his being absent at a certain vote. 

A bill regulating the administration of justice, §*c. 
was returned by the Grovernorat the session of ls04-5, 
and on the final vote Mr. Findlay was not in his seat. 
The principles of the bill are not known; but it is 
known that twenty of those who were elected as re- 
publicans, among whom were Cunningham, Lacoek 
and Holgate, voted against the hill — But can it be 
supposed that a member can constantly be in his seat? 
Are there no causes of necessary absence? Western 
members in particular frequently have business to 



tffaiiSact at the land offices, which must be done in of^ 
4ee hours whilst the House is in session. The known 
:|iainess and integrity of Mr. Findlay, spurn the idea 
pjf his ever having flinched from a vote. It will appear 
fj.'oni the journals that few if any of the members ever 
attended to the duties of the House with more punc- 
tuality. 

At the same session a resolution was offered respect- 
ing the alteratioo of the hundred dollar law (page 141). 
Mr. Boileau was not present at the vote, though he 
was at his seat and voted on another question on the 
same day (page 139). — -Would the author of the Cri- 
sis call this a proof of Mr. Boileau's having some 
federal taint? 

The last proof in tJie Crisis of Mr. Findlay^s 

federalism^ is drawn from hi^i conduct at the 

nomination of candidate for Qovernor in iS06. 

On this part of the subject we have had the satis> 
faction of deriving information from a late distinguish- 
ed member of the House of Representatives from the 
eastward, who was also a member in 1805, and at all 
times a decided democrat. From him we learn that 
Mr. Findlay in the winter of 1805, doubled the policy 
of opposition to Governor M'Kean at the then ap- 
proaching election for Governor. The probability of 
success was by almost everyone at that time deemed 
i)ot to be great, and Mr. Findlay apprehended that a 
defeat v/ould discourage and might prostrate the de- 
mocratic party for a series of years. Eut he uniformly 
declared that if the republican members thought dif- 
ferently, he would cheerfully unite with them and 
strenuously use every exertion to promote success. 
Several gentlemen were proposed as the candidate to 
be supported in opposition to Mr. M'Kean; and Mr* 
Findlay was among the first, if not the first, to men- 
tion the name of Mr. Snyder as the most suitable 
c^andidate. This, several members of the present Le- 
gislature, and many others of the Legislature of 1805, 
eould attest. The author of the Crisis says he voted 



1^ 

•• in favor of M'K^ati's nomination fov Governor.^^ 
The voting in the nominating caucus was by ballgt, 
and it could not now be ascertained, unless from him- 
self, whom Mr. Findlay voted for; but the whole of his 
subsequent conduct manifested his approbation of and 
zeal for the election of Mr. Snyder. 

In the electioneering campaign of 1805, the result of 
the election in Franklin county proves the efficient aid 
of Mr. Findlay to the cause of Snyder and democracy. 
At that time there was no republican paper in Frank- 
lin county by which to refute the federal charges 
against the democratic candidate, and every thing de- 
pended on the zeal and activity of the leading demo- 
cratic citizens. And certainly it would be folly to deny 
that his success was in part owing to the exertions and 
influence of Mr^ Findlay. The democratic candidate 
failed in Montgomery and other counties, from which 
more was expected than from Franklin. That Gro- 
vernor Snyder had no more active, vigilant and indus- 
trious friend in 1808 than Mr. Findlay, is universally 
known. The charge of his having been at any time 
hostile to Mr. Snyder, is preposterous; and to say any 
thing on the subject is condescension too great. It is 
for the first time insinuated by the author of the Crisis^ 
solely for the purpose of creating jealousy between 
personal and political friends. 

Such are the proofs adduced by the author of the 
Crms, of Mr. Findlay's being or having been a feder- 
alist. Proofs founded on false and unsupported asser- 
tions, and on garbled and perverted extracts from of- 
ficial documents. Proofs, which if they had the slight- 
est foundation in fact, the people of Franklin county 
in particular must be stupid beyond conception; since 
from his entrance into public life in 1797? he has been 
uniformly supported with zeal by one party, and 
warmly opposed by the other. 

The object of this address is not to discuss or de- 
tail the character, talents, conduct and services of Mr. 
Findlay. This may properly be done in reply to im- 
putations from the ailverse party, if Mr Findlay 
should be nominated at the convention in March*, in 



14 

which without doubt there will be many memberg 
long and intimately acquainted with his public and 
private life. The object of the present writer is merely 
to expose those charges made by the author of the 
Crisis, which he professes to support by reference to 
papers and records. As to those of his accusations 
which he purports to rest on his bare assertion. Mr. 
Findlay's character must be weak indeed if they 
could affect him. We disdain to bestow a pen full of 
ink upon them. 

But whence, let us enquire, whence arises the 
malignant opposition of the author of the Crisis to 
Mr. Findlay? Is it because Mr. Findlay, experien- 
ced, intelligent, firm and independent, would not 
in any situation submit himself to the control and 
dictation of any man or any set of men from any part 
of the state? Or is it because he secretly desires to 
injure a leading character of the democratic party, in 
order to promote the success of the oldschool or allied 
candidate? 

After all, however, it is amusing to observe how 
malice often defeats itself. The author of the Crisis^ 
with the view of shewing that Mr. Findlay had not 
the public sentiment in his favor, stated that his pre- 
tensions were urged by ^^ three or four printers^^ 
only. Yet in his last sentence but one, his caution for- 
sook him, and the truth inadvertently slipt from his pen. 
He admits that he has. perceived those pretensions to 
have been ^' repeated and repeated in every quarter 
of the state,^^ Is not this demonstrative evidence of 
public favor and approbation? If the author of the 
Crisis could have said half as much of his own can- 
didate, his pamphlet would never have existed. 

Democratic Citizens of Pennsylvania, 
You have now heard both parties — weigh and de- 
cide. Your determination will be final, and that it 
will be just and impartial, no just and impartial man 
can doubt. 

ANOTHER OF THE PEOPLE, 

Harjisbui^g, January 25, 1817. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

■m 

014 312 383 2 f 



